Prudent car ownership measures

The strong hand of the Govt to introduce prudent thinking among the people in buying cars is a welcome move. The prices of cars have gone way above the means of the people, and so are housing prices and the prices of many luxury items. The new culture of buy first and pay later is creating a nation of debtors. And the biggest culprit towards making people all tied up in debt is housing.

What is so bad about taking a $100k loan to be repayable in 10 years compares to a $500k or $1m loan repayable in 30 years?  I can’t tell the difference except one is of a bigger amount, repayable over a longer period, and also with a longer life span.

Would the Govt also apply the same principle to the housing market to encourage prudence in home buying? How about 50% out front for the buying of a property and repayable in 15 years?  Or it is ok to be less prudent in home buying but not so in car buying?

Khaw Boon Wan, wow, is it real?

The announcement by Boon Wan on the back to basics public housing policy is a move in the right direction and will be most welcomed by the people. The objectives of public housing have been altered through the years by shallow thinking people that have forgotten why it was called public housing in the first place that it is best forgotten. Let’s get the basics right.

Public housing is for the citizens, the majority of whom that needs a roof over their heads, a place to rest and bring up children, a place to go home to. When getting a place to sleep is getting so expensive, it is going to make life very difficult to many people as not everyone is so bless to have so much money to pay for housing.

Boon Wan is calling for more feedbacks given the complexities of housing as a home, as an asset, as a fall back to be liquidated to release some funds for retirement, and a host of other purposes. What I would suggest is to go back to basics and simplicity. The priority is to make housing affordable, I mean really and reasonably affordable to the average citizens, and make the right to ownership simple. Some rules are still necessary but need not be so exclusive and demanding.

First principle, all Singaporeans must be allowed to buy a public flat. Everyone needs a place to stay, especially when you are a citizen.

Second principle, build to ensure the supply is enough to meet the demand and not like those thoughtless people who created the demand supply problem that led to the big angst among the people and a property bubble.

Third principle, provide a buffet spread and let the people decide what they want or can afford to buy. Let the people make their own choice and not dictate the choice on the people.

Fourth principle, when supply is adequate to meet demand, there is no need for all the exclusivity clauses to give impression that the higher income buyers are depriving the lower income earners of their chances. This wicked divisive idea to pitch the people against one another must be removed. Every citizen, regardless of income level, is entitled to buy his public flat within a simpler framework of rules and regulations.

Fifth principle, PRs are not eligible to buy public housing. However, they can rent from the citizens or HDB can build rental flats for them. PRs can go to the private property market if they can afford it. But to prevent a big bubble in private property prices, foreigners, including PRs, can only buy to stay and not for speculation. Given the limited space available, it is necessary to have sound regulations to prevent non citizens from churning the property market to raise the cost of living here. Many of the restrictions on foreign ownership of properties should stay and more be introduced to keep the property market under control.

Sixth principle, the speculative element in public housing should be minimised. When there is adequate supply, public housing prices should be stable.

But, as they all said, how real is Boon Wan and his return to basics? Wait for the fine prints. Hopefully cheaper public housing would not compromise on the size and quality of the flats. Please, no reduction in the lease period or things like can see back to HDB or any profits must return to HDB.

Julia Gillard: We will support your job and put Aussie workers first

‘We will support your job and put Aussie workers first…I don’t want to hear stories of Australians missing out on a job because a 457 visa has been misused.’ Julia Gillard, PM Australia.

This is the kind of commitment by a PM and Govt to its citizens. It is always citizens first. And the Australian workers union leaders are pressuring the Govt to stop the exploitation by foreigners to work in Australia at the expense of Australians.

Compare these to the situation here? What is the position of the Govt and the Union and also the Singaporeans affected, losing their jobs to foreigners?

The new Singaporean Aspiration

‘nslan:

March 8, 2013 at 12:55 am (Quote)

Does anybody know the worth of a Degree in Singapore?

A Degree in Arts or Science or Infocom from the “Prestigous” Local NUS and NTU >>> Congratulation! You are entitled to compete with your local fellows for a call-centre job starting from $2k+++ with experience.

Any Degree from Phxxxx or Inxxx >>> Congratulation!!! Well done!!! Come work as a drafter or designer or even a document controller and we will pay you $4-6k to start with and more with experience!’

The above is a quote from a blogger in TRE. Some were lamenting that many bankers and managers were replaced by foreign PMETs and ended up driving taxis. There is a kind of changing of guards in our local institutions including GLCs where the locals are rapidly being replaced by questionable foreigners. This is exactly the same as Singaporeans being eased or forced out of the island to seek greener pasture overseas. And the pace will only quicken with the proposals in the Population White Paper.

At the rate things are going, the new aspiration of young Singaporeans is to get a degree from one of the world class local universities by spending a small fortune for it, get a temporary job or a low paying job and work for a few years before becoming self employed as a taxi driver, driving foreign workers and foreign maids around, and helping them with their luggages and hoping for a good tip. But at the same time be prepared for a few lashing when the service provided is not up to the customer’s satisfaction.

Great aspiration indeed. And the foreign PMETs will be filling up all the cushy jobs in the private sector, GLCs, stats boards and even ministries. A great and bright future awaiting our young Singaporeans.

The budget debate

The debate on the budget exposes many current problems, high cost of living, high property prices, high COE and car prices, congestion in public transport, foreigners taking over Singaporean jobs, Singaporeans being discriminated or victimized in Singapore by foreigners, low wage for workers, NS for PRs etc etc. These problems have been simmering for so many years without a real solution. And Parliament is grabbling with these problems in a most make belief way with MPs offering piece meal solutions that are often comical and good for a laugh.

Do they really did not know what the shit is causing all these problems? Want the answer? Influx of foreigners! KNN the answer is there for all to see and no one is able to see it. Without knowing what is the cause of the problem how are they able to solve the problem at the heart? It is all because of the huge foreigner population.

Now you see the cause, the solution should be must clearer and easier to deal with, right or wrong? Did someone say we should increase the population to 6.9m to solve our problems? Unbelieveable, really unbelieveable! But, but according to a professor, increasing the population is a solution to all our problems and will also lead to more growth and better infrastructure and better quality of living. If this is true, also advocated in the White Paper, just bring in the foreigners and the problems will go away.

Another view, all the problems today are caused by high and compressed population growth of foreigners and having more people here will only add to the problems. Agree or not?

Would many of these problems be solved if the number of foreigners be curbed, the population size be limited? Sure, resetting the population a decade back will cause another host of problems. From obesity to a lean body will need a lot of adjustments and the throwing away of a wardrobe of oversize clothing. The problems today are self inflicted and going forward or backward will bring with it more problems. Which way will solve or cause more problems?

What do you think?

Now there is another more serious problem. The blind are trying so hard to see but cannot see, or is it a case of have eyes but cannot see. Heard of downsizing the population?